GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Dillon Brooks 36.9m
22
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

A volatile mix of contested mid-range pull-ups and physical perimeter defense resulted in a perfectly neutral net rating. While his aggressive shot profile occasionally bailed out late-clock situations, it also disrupted the team's overall offensive flow just enough to cap his impact.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 36.9m -18.8
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Booker 34.8m
16
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
-22.4

An abysmal shot selection profile defined by forced, heavily contested isolation jumpers absolutely cratered his impact score. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions he generated completely derailed the team's momentum and handed the opposition easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/18 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg -2.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense -8.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total -4.7
Avg player in 34.8m -17.7
Impact -22.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 9
S Royce O'Neale 31.1m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Blown assignments on the perimeter and poor navigation of off-ball screens completely erased the value of a red-hot catch-and-shoot performance. His inability to stay in front of his primary matchup turned him into a defensive liability that outweighed his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -5.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense -1.3
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 31.1m -15.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 26.4m
19
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.2

Crushing the offensive glass and finishing through contact generated a massive surge in his overall impact score. He established deep post position early and often, punishing smaller defenders while anchoring the paint on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 26.4m -13.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ryan Dunn 23.9m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Offensive passivity severely limited his overall effectiveness, dragging his net score into the red despite commendable defensive rotations. He routinely passed up open looks, allowing the opposing defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.9m -12.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
20
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.0

Pushing the pace and hunting early-clock triples fueled a breakout performance that heavily spiked his positive metrics. His constant off-ball movement scrambled the opposing defense, creating high-value scoring chances that he converted with ruthless efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +23.4
Avg player in 34.2m -17.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.3

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and a knack for jumping passing lanes translated into a stellar two-way impact score. He capitalized on the resulting chaos by converting high-percentage transition looks, proving to be a highly disruptive force all night.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.8
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 29.0m -14.8
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Oso Ighodaro 12.9m
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite switchability on the perimeter and timely weak-side rim protection drove a highly positive impact despite a near-total lack of offensive usage. He proved that scoring isn't required to dominate a stint, using his length to completely suffocate opposing pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 12.9m -6.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Fumbling interior catches and failing to secure defensive rebounds severely punished his rating during a short rotation. His inability to anchor the paint or finish through light contact made him a distinct negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 7.8m -4.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A disastrously brief stint was marred by immediate defensive breakdowns and poor spatial awareness. He bled value rapidly by getting caught out of position, forcing the coaching staff to pull him almost immediately.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 3.0m -1.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Jaden McDaniels 40.5m
13
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

Elite defensive metrics and high-motor hustle plays completely overshadowed a frigid night from beyond the arc. Despite his perimeter jumper abandoning him, his ability to blow up actions on the wing kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.5m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +8.8
Defense +9.0
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 40.5m -20.6
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 40.2m
41
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.5

An absolute masterclass in three-level shot creation drove a massive positive impact score. He relentlessly attacked drop coverage to generate high-quality looks, while simultaneously locking down his perimeter assignments on the other end.

Shooting
FG 14/24 (58.3%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +9.5
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 40.2m -20.6
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 5
S Rudy Gobert 34.8m
12
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.5

Dominant interior positioning fueled a highly efficient offensive showing that anchored his positive net rating. By strictly limiting his shot diet to high-percentage looks around the rim, he maximized his value without demanding excess touches.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 34.8m -17.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Julius Randle 34.2m
20
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

A heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers dragged his overall impact into the negative despite decent raw scoring totals. His tendency to stall the offense with isolation sets negated the value of his solid interior hustle.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +6.0
Defense +4.4
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 34.2m -17.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Errant perimeter shooting severely handicapped his offensive value, pulling his overall impact into the red. He managed to salvage some utility through aggressive point-of-attack defense, but the sheer volume of bricked spot-up attempts was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.9
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 31.6m -16.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
Naz Reid 27.0m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Active hands and disciplined rim rotations boosted his defensive metrics enough to offset a lackluster shooting night. Even with his jumper failing to connect at its usual clip, his willingness to do the dirty work inside kept him in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -16.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.5
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 27.0m -13.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Mike Conley 14.3m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Failing to generate any meaningful rim pressure resulted in a stagnant offensive showing that tanked his overall rating. While he scrapped for loose balls to generate some hustle value, his inability to break down the defense made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -19.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +4.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 14.3m -7.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Crisp decision-making and excellent shot selection during secondary transition opportunities fueled a highly productive cameo. He maximized his limited floor time by taking only high-value looks and avoiding defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 9.3m -4.8
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Short-burst energy and disciplined closeouts defined a quiet but effective rotational stint. He avoided forcing bad shots, instead relying on defensive positioning to eke out a marginally positive impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -76.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 8.0m -4.1
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Joe Ingles 0.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A microscopic stint at the end of a quarter provided virtually zero data points for evaluation. His slight negative grade is simply statistical noise from a brief substitution pattern.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.1m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0